Cain_Zeros said:
ph0b0s123 said:
sindremaster said:
ph0b0s123 said:
One question on this whole thing. How does it affect sites etc outside of the US. I.e not a .com that US authorities think they own, wherever hosted, but .co.uk 's etc. I feel very sorry for people in the US if this is approved. I also understand that there will be an initial effect since most web content comes from the US. But if say Jim moves him, his show and it's hosting back to his native UK (from the accent), won't the show be back to normal?
If the US gov wants to turn the US into the Internet version of North Korean, then fine. I just don't see where 'this will kill the whole Internet' comes from. There are other countries in the world out there you know, where this legislation will not reach. Escapistmagazine.co.uk, youtube.co.uk FTW?
A lot of the audience from sites like the Escapist are American. If Americans can't enter these sites, they lose a lot of money and may have to shut down, even if they're not based in the US.
OK, so the US as a consumer market gets lost. I understand it is the biggest market. I just am not seeing the 'this will kill the whole internet'. That statement is a bit US centric, to me.
Well, there's this. [http://www.extremetech.com/computing/109533-how-sopa-could-actually-break-the-internet] That's certainly seems "this will kill the whole internet" worthy.
I am a network engineer so am aware of all of this. Again this is US focused on the US controlled domains. Domains like, my local .co.uk or other country DNS will not be that affected apart from getting rubbish .com DNS info.
Other countries DNS providers will mitigate around this. It will screw the US DNS service, but the US DNS service is not the 'whole of the internet', the point I keep trying to make. The article even agrees.
From the article you quoted:
"Taken to extremes, the reckless pursuit of secure content could fracture the dubious alliance that?s allowed the US to maintain control over the internet and lead to the creation of a second international network. "
This is the point I have been trying to make here all along. The world will have a two tier internet. An unfiltered one used by most countries, and a filtered one that countries such as China, N Korea and the US put in place. If Jim moves to the UK, he can do his show as normal, but with no US watchers and yes less money. A call of 'don't do this as it will remove a market for our content' is different to this 'will kill the whole internet' and just comes off as Americans forgetting they are not the only country in the world.
Initially there will be a big impact on the internet, but it will adapt around the US measures and content will just become less focused for the US market. If anything this may remove power from the US content lobby, as they will be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
At the end of the day if this monstrosity passes it is curtains for the US part of the internet and should be avoided at all costs. If there was something I as a foreigner, could be doing to put pressure on the US gov not to do this, I would but since they hardly even listen to even US citizens, I have no chance. But it will not 'kill the whole of the internet', that's the only part of this whole argument I disagree with.